Jayaramu vs Anpazhalan Advocate - KARTHIKEYARAJAN.S — 300004/2018
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 7Rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSV030000062018
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
300004/2018
Filing Date
04-01-2018
Registration No
300004/2018
Registration Date
04-01-2018
Court
Sub Court, Sivagangai
Judge
3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayaramu
Adv. Srinivasaragavan
Anbucheliyan
Adv. Srinivasaragavan
Respondent(s)
Anpazhalan Advocate - KARTHIKEYARAJAN.S
Pandiyan
Subrmanian
Adv. Chandrasekaran
Fathima Beevi
Adv. Xavier Raj
Syed Abuthakir
Amardheen
Jamal Mohamed
Adv. Xavier Raj
Kamardheen
Adv. Xavier Raj
Beer Mohamed
Adv. Xavier Raj
Hearing History
Judge: 3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a Tamil language court order from OS No. 4/2018 dated 18.08.2025. The judgment addresses a property dispute involving contested claims about when property was acquired and the validity of agreements between parties. The court's analysis focuses on examining conflicting testimonies regarding an agreement dated 28.09.1980 versus 22.09.1996, the legitimacy of a 1947 will, and the defendant's acquisition of property in 2012. The court concludes that the defendant lawfully acquired the property and that the plaintiffs' claims regarding fraudulent transfer are unfounded, rejecting their contentions about improper dealings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Tamil language court order from OS No. 4/2018 dated 18.08.2025. The judgment addresses a property dispute involving contested claims about when property was acquired and the validity of agreements between parties. The court's analysis focuses on examining conflicting testimonies regarding an agreement dated 28.09.1980 versus 22.09.1996, the legitimacy of a 1947 will, and the defendant's acquisition of property in 2012. The court concludes that the defendant lawfully acquired the property and that the plaintiffs' claims regarding fraudulent transfer are unfounded, rejecting their contentions about improper dealings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts